News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2007, 11:08:18 AM »
Kind of odd that there was no mention of Jay Blasi at Chambers ???

In the latest GD magazine there is brief mention of Jay..

Ray Tennenbaum

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2007, 11:22:09 AM »
I've gotten in trouble for speculating this way before, but: 9-to-5 what happened was, Whitten suggested someone interview himself.  the GD powers thought about it, and said, "no, that won't do."  Whitten, or someone, said, "but look, you can't just ignore Erin Hills -- maybe it's not eligible for an award, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist."  they thought it over and proposed something like -- this.

I think it's not coincidental that this was a "Web exclusive," or whatever Golf Digest called it.

I can't prove this, but believe it: There's more editorial integrity when things are committed to actual paper and not just to its cyber-equivalent.

yeah, since some editors don't really think of the world wide web as actually existing, they figured it was a good place to stick this story.  a bit iffy, but I think it's a little silly to call the guy out -- really, it's not like it's a second-rate course that's unworthy of coverage, is it?

Tom D., I'm a little surprised at your reaction.  I suppose I can understand your feeling somewhat piqued, but given how much you write for the magazines -- leaving aside how much of your business comes from golf course design, compared to Whitten's -- your carping doesn't seem appropriate.

you can't say that *your* byline appearing on a more or less regular basis in a national golf magazine doesn't amount to some kind of endorsement, nor adds cachet.  don't I recall you listing one or two of your own designs in some T&LG "best links courses" piece?  I wouldn't be surprised if that's what inspired (provoked) Whitten.

frankly as far as I'm concerned there's already too many golf writers, I'd be happy if you both went back to sketching and bulldozing full time.

Ryan Farrow

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2007, 11:38:30 AM »
Does anyone else get the feeling that this article was written just so Ron could tell everyone that he was responsible for the design decisions of almost everything on the golf course?

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2007, 11:44:50 AM »
Wayne,
 The texture of the grasses is a wonderful addition to the visual, agreed.
The use of this grass, to highlight areas that might be less ideal, such as bunkers and gunk, may not be perfectly applied, yet. I say "might" because... why should it be dictated to anyone, how to attack? The texture sends signals "stay away" and the nature of fescue, as a clump grass, provides great unpredictability, on one's ability to recover from a lie completly determined randomly. Rub O' green at it's finest.
Take for i.e. the 10th. That whole area, above that bunker is textured with the colored grass, yet is not too demanding to recover from.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 11:48:01 AM by Adam Clayman »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2007, 11:45:31 AM »
Ray:

Yes, I can write for any number of magazines, and I do.  (If I didn't like to write, you wouldn't be reading this.)  I've been careful the past few years to write for different magazines here and there, so there would be no accusations of "bias".

Ron Whitten is in the opposite situation.  He's a paid staff member at GOLF DIGEST.  If he's getting paid $100,000 to consult on a golf course design, and if the client expects that he'll get some coverage in GOLF DIGEST for his money, then that's a clear conflict.  It's also not fair to all the other golf course architects who are competing for that job if some of the fee is based on "free advertising".

Of course, as Mark McCormack once said, you're nobody in the golf business until you've got some conflicts of interest going.  Nicklaus only played the last 15 years of his career (outside of major championships) on courses which he'd been paid to design.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2007, 12:15:41 PM »
I'm a little confused after reading the title of the article and then reading the article.

While it was supposed to be a comparison of EH vs CB, 90% of the discussion was focused around EH.  Even Ron at one point admits hes rambling on about the course....but he never gets back on topic.  While it wasn't an advert per se, it was more the style of "The making of EH....and a couple of tidbits about CB that I pulled off the website".  I don't see how the editors could have even remotely called this a comparison piece.  I took a journalism course and wrote for the school paper in my senior year of high school and there is no way I would have gotten that article thru as a "compare and contrast" piece.


Ray,

I'd tend to agree with Tom Ds point on this one.  There is a huge difference in my mind between freelancing articles here and there for various magazines and being a senior editor for one of the top 2 golf magazines in circulation.

wsmorrison

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2007, 12:21:08 PM »
"Nicklaus only played the last 15 years of his career (outside of major championships) on courses which he'd been paid to design."

I had no idea that this was the case.  Even if this was a generalization with some exceptions, I still think it a loathsome form of behavior without honor.  In doing so, Nicklaus clearly prostituted his own interests while subordinating those of the sport.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 12:21:47 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2007, 12:32:09 PM »

From a reliable source, I heard the outer roughs (native areas, unmaintained rough...."fescue" areas) at EH is almost anything but fescue, but a lot of forage grasses that are excessively thick.


Anyone else annoyed by this trend with new courses? In trying to imitate the "classic links" looks they grow these unmainted tall grass areas all around the hole.

Which I wouldn't mind if they were thin and wispy (like the real links) where I would be able to find my ball and play it out (even if it just a wedge to hack it out), but most of these new courses water and feed these tall grasses to a point where even if you roll the ball in (within a foot), there is no way you can find a ball let alone play it.

To me, these grasses are nothing more than OB boundaries that surround every hole in every side. It kills risk/reward and takes the driver out of your hand and needlessly slows down rounds.

When you compare that to Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes, (or Chambers Bay) there may be islands of gorse where you can lose a ball, but usually there are bailout areas on the other side. I look at pictures of Erin Hills, although beautiful to look at, I would be scared out of my mind. What do I do from the tee box if my bail out area on the right is lost ball and the bail out area on the left is lost ball?

And it is not just Erin Hills. I recently played Reserve Vineyard North Course in Portland and was absolutely horrified to find huge islands of tall, well-fed native grasess that line both sides of the fairway. I must have lost 4 or 5 balls that just barely rolled in off the fairway.

That is not the type of golf that I enjoy playing...
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 12:44:42 PM by Richard Choi »

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2007, 12:41:45 PM »
I must admit that I was rather put off by the editorial nature of the piece. "I did this..."   "I did that..." "Twisted ankles and CB..."

And after four pages you get a grudging admission that there were other persons involved in the design.

I believe a talented writer with far less ego could have constructed such an article without tooting his own horn repeatedly or, at least to some degree, degrading the other course.

Of course I am having a bad morning... I'll read it again tomorrow and see how it hits me then.

Ray Tennenbaum

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2007, 12:53:43 PM »
I'd tend to agree with Tom Ds point on this one.  There is a huge difference in my mind between freelancing articles here and there for various magazines and being a senior editor for one of the top 2 golf magazines in circulation.



to my mind they're both "culpable" to an exactly equal degree.

* Whitten, who writes for a living, pimps his course online.

* Doak, who designs for a living, occasionally doesn't miss an opportunity to pimp a couple of his courses as a guest columnist.

sauces, ganders, etc. if you are going to argue that it's improper for Whitten to discuss his design, then Doak ought to be prohibited from casting laurels on himself.  

what makes it a judgement call is that each is a proven expert in his profession, likewise a proven successful amateur in his "hobby."  failing that, these would make for appalling spectacle instead of harmless little capers.


Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2007, 01:29:26 PM »
sauces, ganders, etc. if you are going to argue that it's improper for Whitten to discuss his design, then Doak ought to be prohibited from casting laurels on himself.  

Show me where any one of us has argued that it's improper for Whitten to discuss his design.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Daryl David

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2007, 01:35:56 PM »
I am ok with him discussing his design.  In fact that would be very interesting to me; an article that I would seek out.  

I am definitely not ok with him discussing Chambers in the same article.  Those courses are supposedly in competition. Whether it's to hold an Open or for best new course awards.  That is a conflict of interest pure and simple.  GD should have run a separate article on Chambers with someone different providing the critique.  

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2007, 01:51:30 PM »
The key point here is that there's an inescapable appearance that the owners of Erin Hills bought a big chunk of Golf Digest's editorial space when they hired Ron Whitten to help design their course.

If Whitten is ever going to establish himself as a designer who succeeds on his architectural skills alone -- and if Golf Digest is ever going to prove itself to be above messy conflicts such as this one -- the magazine and the critic should part company.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Matt_Ward

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2007, 02:46:31 PM »
Dan Callahan:

Amen brother ...

"Whatever happened to editorial integrity?"

Dan, that's an oxymoron like "military intelligence."

The sad reality is Golf Digest provided a megaphone to which Whitten is now able to personally bring forward his take on golf course design -- albeit one with which he was a major contributor.

I've spoken about this before -- when people want to play umpire (critic) and baseball player (designer) all in the same breath -- then the roles are clearly mixed and match to suit the agenda of the person gaining from them.

Whether it's Whitten or Nicklaus or anyone else for that matter it becomes a difficult thing to follow. And for those who say disclosure alone should solve the issue the reality is that editorial independence isn't preserved with such a neat and tidy maneuver.

Why do I as a reader have to guess which hat the person is wearing. If you're the chief critic then be divorced from designing or contributing to the design of others. It would be no different if the chief political writer for The NY Times was an elected officeholder at a high level.

I don't blame Whitten -- but I do believe Digest needs to understand what it's role is within the greater golf community -- especially to its readers (other designers, other courses, etc, etc) who may not share this desire to promote a separate agenda with one of their own.

Ray Tennenbaum

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2007, 02:56:14 PM »
I am ok with him discussing his design.  In fact that would be very interesting to me; an article that I would seek out.  

I am definitely not ok with him discussing Chambers in the same article.  Those courses are supposedly in competition. Whether it's to hold an Open or for best new course awards.  That is a conflict of interest pure and simple.  GD should have run a separate article on Chambers with someone different providing the critique.  

oh, whatever.  let's say, "discuss his design in whatever way he sees fit."  

really, I mean -- please note that W. writes that CB would make a good US Open site!  for heaven's sake, you make it sound like he called CB a freakin' dog track.

Andy Troeger

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #40 on: August 12, 2007, 03:04:58 PM »
I'll be interested to follow the policies of GolfWeek regarding Old MacDonald due to Mr. Klein's involvement, and the subsequent reaction here.

I think this whole debate makes a mountain out of a molehill. Its not like RW is hiding the fact that he is the co-designer of the place, and in that sense he can add insights on Erin Hills that other writers could not. Its not as if the course hasn't gotten publicity from other sources.

Regarding his comments on Chamber's Bay, I agree with Ray's take. But then again, many of you would argue that I have a conflict of interest myself being a GD panelist. So be it.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2007, 03:11:04 PM »
I'll be interested to follow the policies of GolfWeek regarding Old MacDonald due to Mr. Klein's involvement, and the subsequent reaction here.

I think this whole debate makes a mountain out of a molehill. Its not like RW is hiding the fact that he is the co-designer of the place, and in that sense he can add insights on Erin Hills that other writers could not. Its not as if the course hasn't gotten publicity from other sources.

Regarding his comments on Chamber's Bay, I agree with Ray's take. But then again, many of you would argue that I have a conflict of interest myself being a GD panelist. So be it.

This whole site makes a mountain out of a molehill! Every day, with every comment in every thread!

I mean, really, and no offense to anyone, but in any sane perspective of life on Earth, Golf Course Architecture is clearly a molehill.

A potentially fascinating one, I'll grant you -- like editorial integrity in general, or the editorial integrity of Golf Digest in particular -- but a molehill nonetheless.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Matt_Ward

Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2007, 03:14:59 PM »
Dan:

Then I guess there are no boundaries -- pigs can be ducks and ducks can be elephants. Whatever goes -- goes.

No conflicts ever exist.

Geeze, let's have umpires play as baseball players and go from there.

C'mon please.

Digest often takes the role as being THE soucre for golf info --how bout they decide to act like it and instead of just talking about it?


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2007, 03:21:43 PM »
Many of us here have conflicts of interest every time we contribute to this site:

Writers
Raters
Architects
Superintendents
Associates
Greens Chairmen
Construction contractors
Etc.

The best thing for me is to stay quiet when the conflict is apparent. My rule isn't everyone else's rule, nor should it be.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2007, 03:35:44 PM »
Dan:

Then I guess there are no boundaries -- pigs can be ducks and ducks can be elephants. Whatever goes -- goes.

No conflicts ever exist.

Geeze, let's have umpires play as baseball players and go from there.

C'mon please.

Digest often takes the role as being THE soucre for golf info --how bout they decide to act like it and instead of just talking about it?



Matt --

If you're talking to me there, it might behoove you to read my earlier comments in this very thread. Because if you're talking to me, you're misunderstanding badly.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #45 on: August 12, 2007, 07:24:46 PM »
Why can't Ron or Brad pursue golf course design without having to give up something they do so well?

It's just an evolution of their career interests.....and not at all different than what Tom Doak has done with his.

Both of the magazines they are involved with use raters or rankers......and I don't think either of them can stuff ballot boxes.

They both reveal the fact that they have an involvement with their projects....and this can work both ways for a client, depending on the projects success or failure.

I abhor any constraint of someones personal evolution.


I think Joe Hancocks post #43 is good.....except for the fact that he says he shouldn't say it. :)



 
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 07:32:10 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2007, 08:23:23 PM »
Andy T:

Just so you know, GOLFWEEK, reasoning that Mr. Klein could have been asked to be involved in the Bandon project partly because of his station with their magazine, ruled that he could participate but that he could not profit from being involved.  His consulting fees for the project are being donated to the charity of their choice.

It's then also up to the magazine whether they let him write about the experience or not, but at least he hasn't been paid to promote it.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2007, 08:27:49 PM »
I think Joe Hancocks post #43 is good.....except for the fact that he says he shouldn't say it. :)

It's against my better judgment, but.....thanks!

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2007, 08:37:49 PM »
I still have to yet to get a valid arguement as to why this article could be titled a comparison column?

His few comments on CB were either nuetral or negative comments meanwhile the only thing negative he mentioned about EH was the 3 homes that overlook the property, 2 of which have been removed and the other on its way out.

If he's going to write an op-ed piece then call it such, but this article in essence only amounted to why Erin Hills is a better candidate to host a Open over CB.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 08:38:18 PM by Kalen Braley »

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Whitten Compares Erin Hills and Chambers Bay
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2007, 08:56:12 PM »
Andy T:

Just so you know, GOLFWEEK, reasoning that Mr. Klein could have been asked to be involved in the Bandon project partly because of his station with their magazine, ruled that he could participate but that he could not profit from being involved.  His consulting fees for the project are being donated to the charity of their choice.

It's then also up to the magazine whether they let him write about the experience or not, but at least he hasn't been paid to promote it.


Jaysus.....why does it have to be this complicated?

Oh, I guess the little cynic in me could say that although Brad didn't receive 'direct' compensation....he will receive much more indirect compensation from his rejection of the former.

I personally do not want to think like that.

I wake up most everyday naive....and I consider my day successful if I can fall asleep with that same faith.

Which is rarely.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 09:06:40 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back